this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2023
245 points (95.9% liked)

Europe

8484 readers
1 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe πŸ‡ͺπŸ‡Ί

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, πŸ‡©πŸ‡ͺ ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

  1. Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
  2. No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
  3. No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 49 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 67 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Hmmm... It's almost like political conservatism is just a scapegoat for sociopathic beliefs and empathetic deficiencies.

[–] taladar@feddit.de 25 points 9 months ago

Scapegoat isn't quite the right term. I think you mean euphemism or something similar.

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 37 points 9 months ago

Give him two more years as PM and even Maggi Thatcher would consider him a real Brit....

[–] alienanimals@lemmy.world 15 points 9 months ago

Rishi Sunak's sole goal as PM is to make the rich richer.

[–] wischi@programming.dev 10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (4 children)

I don't know the guy but to be fair there is always a risk tradeoff. We also accept it to be OK if people die in car accidents. The alternative would be to forbid traveling by car.

[–] br3d@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago (2 children)

You seem to be suggesting that because some level of risk is inevitable, any level of risk is acceptable. There's a big difference between minimal practical risk and reckless levels of risk, but your construction doesn't capture that with its crude binary of "risk or no driving". We could drive with far less risk, eg enforcing speed limits with technology

[–] PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works 6 points 9 months ago

To be charitable, I think they're saying that risk discussions require, well, discussion.

[–] wischi@programming.dev 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

No I didn't say that (at least didn't mean to, am not a native speaker). What I tried to say was that there are always options to reduce the risks even more but we still don't do them because it would make other aspects of life harder. Currently a lot of people (by design) have the mental and physical fitness to get a driver's license. We could theoretically up the requirements a lot (think pilots). It would lead to way less cars, less car accidents, more experienced drivers, probably even more car pooling, etc. But it would be at the cost of flexibility for a lot of people and thus we don't implement that and accept the risk. We could also set stricter speed limits. Think about just halfing all existing speed limits. Of course the streets would be safer but it's again a tradeoff and we don't do that because people like to drive fast and accept the risk. Currently most things come down to the fact that we try to reduce risk while keeping the inconvenience cost low but there are limits to this approach - which is fine if everybody understands that this basically means that we accept the risks.

Back to the original topic, the same is true for a pandemic. Of course there are less deaths with lockdowns - but at what cost? Is it worth it that we lock everybody up to reduce the risk?

[–] ondoyant@beehaw.org 6 points 9 months ago

appealing to existing harms being done in the world to justify more harms is not really a compelling argument. we have done a lot to mitigate the risk of car travel, and there are plenty of people who see the damage cars do to people and our environment and advocate for better transit solutions that are less likely to harm people. the reality is they could have done more, saved lives, by limiting the spread of the disease more than they did. they didn't, and their failure to act responsibly can and should be criticized.

[–] A2PKXG@feddit.de 2 points 9 months ago

Absolutely. But most humans aren't rational being and consider such statements unacceptable.

We definitely have ways to spend more money ok healthcare or charities, with obvious positive consequences. However we're far from spending every last penny on it. This is because it isn't our top priority.

[–] DmMacniel@feddit.de 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Another outing of Sunak as being a fucking sociopathic psychotic and bigoted asshole.

[–] Vivarevo@sopuli.xyz 6 points 9 months ago

Significant wealth causes visible to scans brain dmg.

[–] letmesleep@feddit.de 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

So what? That appears to be the opinion of almost everyone by now.

I mean, it's abundantly clear that things like wearing a mask in public transport would still save lives. Here in Germany still have dozens of Covid deaths per day. But where I live about 99% of people step into overcrowded trains and buses without covering up at all. Even those with clear symptoms. Heck, wearing a mask gets you stupid comments.

At worst Sunak took up that opinion a little earlier than most.

[–] rainynight65@feddit.de 2 points 9 months ago

I'm back to masking up on trains and in crowded places. Someone wants to give me stick about it, they can go have a nice big steaming cup of MYOFB.